Given that they can't put more rolling stock onto the train lines (nor is there any room to expand them) and there isn't anywhere else to put new roads, surely logic dictates that better use of the waterway to Parramatta along with connecting services is really one of the few options left available.

Perhaps look at establishing car/cycle parking at ferry terminals for those who are coming from further out West into the CBD. The ferry terminal at Homebush has the ability to cater for both and has the potential to be significantly expanded.

More roads only ever leads to more cars and at some point there is a bottleneck.

Bad GPS. The cyclist could have taken the Parra river cycleway and arrived at Parramatta in no time and without having to deal with the trucks.

Again the NRMA is out there promoting more roads...and where is our state group supposed advocate of bike infrastructure to counter the NRMA's rampant traffic promotion? Oh yes, nowhere. The silence says it all.

CommuRider wrote:Bad GPS. The cyclist could have taken the Parra river cycleway and arrived at Parramatta in no time and without having to deal with the trucks.

Again the NRMA is out there promoting more roads...and where is our state group supposed advocate of bike infrastructure to counter the NRMA's rampant traffic promotion? Oh yes, nowhere. The silence says it all.

They probably did release a statement but no-one listened Oops! Silly me! Just checked - nothing!

As I said, it is all well and good to promote more roads but where are they going to put them? There isn't anywhere you can expand the road network close to the CBD without starting to reclaim private land as far as I know. Making changes further out just move the current carpark!

CommuRider wrote:Bad GPS. The cyclist could have taken the Parra river cycleway and arrived at Parramatta in no time and without having to deal with the trucks.

Again the NRMA is out there promoting more roads...and where is our state group supposed advocate of bike infrastructure to counter the NRMA's rampant traffic promotion? Oh yes, nowhere. The silence says it all.

They probably did release a statement but no-one listened Oops! Silly me! Just checked - nothing!

As I said, it is all well and good to promote more roads but where are they going to put them? There isn't anywhere you can expand the road network close to the CBD without starting to reclaim private land as far as I know. Making changes further out just move the current carpark!

The state government believes tunnels are the answer! Imagine the billions that will be wasted building them and to no benefit. Meanwhile, motorists complain about spending a few million on cycling infrastructure which both reduces traffic congestion and obesity.

goneriding wrote:Given that they can't put more rolling stock onto the train lines (nor is there any room to expand them) and there isn't anywhere else to put new roads, surely logic dictates that better use of the waterway to Parramatta along with connecting services is really one of the few options left available.

The Ferry trip is very pleasant, but Ferry speeds can't (and never will) match train speeds. For people living close to the ferry terminals, and working close to the CBD wharves, they could be an worthwhile. But presently, there's a lot of fairly empty Rivercats running up and down the river in peak hours (at least from my observations at the Rhodes to Rydalmere end of the route).

The airport line was built essentially to solve the need for capacity between Tempe and the CBD (the airport stops were a red-herring, and have never proved economic). It achieved that by tunneling - in quite difficult sandy conditions too. Building tunnels for train lines (i.e. subways) is what most major world cities do to solve mass transit problems.

The article also nobbles the train performance. There are express trains from Parramatta that get to/from the CBD in around 20 minutes. The reporter that rode the train wasn't trying real hard either. With a bit of attention to train schedules, someone starting a commute from Parramatta to Strathfield could be able to beat a good cyclist (if they live close enough to the stations).

Unfortunately, the Telegraph is serving the interests of the road lobby. If the past M2 deals are any guide, we are more than likely to end up with an M4 East road tunnel project that has "non-competition" clauses that prevent any government or private sector interests ever building a parallel train line that would very quickly undermine a road tunnel's viability.

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

Not only was the bike faster, but the rider burned off some serious calories and is unlikely to to end up a Type 2 Diabetic. Health, speed and zero pollution. Clover Moore is 100% correct we need more bike tracks.

Comment 10 of 122

Cameron Cox of Sydney Posted at 8:45 AM March 16, 2012

Think how much faster (and safer) the cyclist would have been if the whole trip could have been done on separated bike lanes

Comment 18 of 122

Stevie Posted at 9:27 AM March 16, 2012

we need to invest in public transport and cycleways, not roads. with the current obesity epidemic we need more people roding their bikes to work. imagine how much money would be saved on health, and how much less air pollution there would be?

Comment 36 of 122

Harry Miller of Australia Posted at 9:31 AM March 16, 2012

Yes but did the bike run red lights like they usually do

Comment 39 of 122

Brenda of Sydney Posted at 9:50 AM March 16, 2012

I don't understand why the cyclist took the worst route when an offroad pleasant route is available. Think how many cars would be off the road if those single passengers travelling less than 5ks got out and did some exercise on a bike. They would be saving themselves and the community the health care costs they are going to get from their sedentary lifestyle

Comment 49 of 122

Tom of Eastwood Posted at 10:09 AM March 16, 2012

The bike would probably win hands down if you included getting to a typical suburban house in the Parramatta that was not say 10 to 20 mins walk from the station as the bike can go straight there. Also a bit more research would have avoided the ride along Parammatta road. Not to mention the 1 hour plus of "free" exercise.

Comment 60 of 122

matt of Thinker. Posted at 10:45 AM March 16, 2012

I wonder if a 'green' car is actually greener. Considering the mining products that go into the 'green' cells and so forth. What do you do with the batteries when they are dead? Where do we source our electricity? Just putting it out there..

One of the commerical tv stations did a comparo from Farrington Road south of Perth to the CBD comparing time for a motorist and a driver a couple of weeks ago.

The item ended up with the cyclist wining by three minutes and they pointedly observed that the driver was only that close because he drove directly to the agreed end point instead of via his parking station.

However I see that the rider was not required to have a shower and get dressed for work. In fairness I think the driver won if the end point was to be in the office and suited up to work.

The start point was also the worst possible case for the driver as it was just where significant major freeway works are being done and so gridlock sets in earlier than normal. At the same time there is only a two or three minute cost to the rider with detour through Bateman.

I like cycling. I applaud everyone that does it to get to work. It is MY preferred way of getting around. I am on the cyclists side. But as for saving time I have never seen it in four decades of doing it in Perth. Time saved, at least for arriving to work, is not an honest argument for most CBD workers. (Ross itemises a heap of honest reaons. Thanks.)

btw I was disappointed that they did not have a third person taking the train in the Perth trial. I am pretty sure the winner would have been clear, even without requiring the driver to park or the rider to shower and change.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:One of the commerical tv stations did a comparo from Farrington Road south of Perth to the CBD comparing time for a motorist and a driver a couple of weeks ago.

The item ended up with the cyclist wining by three minutes and they pointedly observed that the driver was only that close because he drove directly to the agreed end point instead of via his parking station.

However I see that the rider was not required to have a shower and get dressed for work. In fairness I think the driver won if the end point was to be in the office and suited up to work.

This is often raised as an issue in these "challenges", but one would expect that the driver had to get showered/dressed at home before they left, and would therefore have woken up earlier to do so. That they spend this time before they arrive at work rather than after does not matter. The driver and cyclist do spend the same amount of time so they cancel each other out for the purposes of the challenge.I do agree that the driver should have to go and park their car at their usual location before considering their journey "complete", and if you want the challenge to take into account the showering/dressing times, then the challenge should start with the various commuters waking up in the morning, and should stop when they are seated at their desks ready to go. If i need to in the morning, I can basically wake up, throw on cycling gear and be out the door in 15 minutes.

In reality, a regular cyclist would have fine-tuned their route and made it the most efficient.

When I return to the family home in Fairfield I have separate routes for travelling to and from the station. I take advantage of the long downhill towards the station, where the traffic is slow and so I have never had troubles with drivers (except for a couple who overtook me just to suddenly turn left in front of me!) I have another route which is longer, but quieter and less steep when returning so as to avoid trouble with afternoon commuters.

Of course, I just obtained for myself the most efficient commute to college. I live in the upstairs dormitory wing now. (a la Yehuda Moon)

biker jk wrote:The state government believes tunnels are the answer! Imagine the billions that will be wasted building them and to no benefit. Meanwhile, motorists complain about spending a few million on cycling infrastructure which both reduces traffic congestion and obesity.

Tunnels have their place, after all you can't keep building more roads as there is simply not enough room! Same story with bike lanes to some extent.

M4 east is a good example, connecting the M4 and the western distributor. Parra rd is a nightmare and a tunnel would free up space on the surface for bike lanes etc. It could also help reduce pollution as exhaust gas emitted in the tunnel is filtered before being released instead of just coming straight out the tailpipe into the athmosphere.

They should have built the M4 tunnel 15 years ago when they were first talking about it. Now (if it ever happens) it will cost 10 times s much.

JV911 wrote:They should have built the M4 tunnel 15 years ago when they were first talking about it. Now (if it ever happens) it will cost 10 times s much.

The M4 East was planned about the same time as the Western Distributor (i.e. more than 30 years ago) and the M4. It was never meant to dump all the traffic onto Parramatta Rd at Strathfield as its final solution.

By the late 1970's, the RTA had reserved a route for it, and bought many properties. The Wran Government decided not to build it, and released the properties to the market. I shall leave you to guess who werethe owners of several of the properties real estate agents showed us about this time.

Cheers

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

biker jk wrote:The state government believes tunnels are the answer! Imagine the billions that will be wasted building them and to no benefit. Meanwhile, motorists complain about spending a few million on cycling infrastructure which both reduces traffic congestion and obesity.

Tunnels have their place, after all you can't keep building more roads as there is simply not enough room! Same story with bike lanes to some extent.

Traffic is entirely caused by single occupant cars. Essentially this is a reverse luxury tax on people that do not participate in the madness, because we still have to fund this stupidity out of general tax.

M4 east is a good example, connecting the M4 and the western distributor. Parra rd is a nightmare and a tunnel would free up space on the surface for bike lanes etc. It could also help reduce pollution as exhaust gas emitted in the tunnel is filtered before being released instead of just coming straight out the tailpipe into the athmosphere.

They should have built the M4 tunnel 15 years ago when they were first talking about it. Now (if it ever happens) it will cost 10 times s much.

The Western Distributor cannot generate or absorb more traffic. It shares the same bridge with Victoria Rd. ie there is no space to route more traffic to it or extract more traffic from the city. Ever destined to repeat the same mistake.

I also increasingly resent the concept of paying tax to build these things, and finding there is not parallel fast cycle infrastructure - all of the major tunnels in Sydney ban cycles, and none of them have anything that actually facilitates a fast journey in parallel on a cycle.

zero wrote:I also increasingly resent the concept of paying tax to build these things, and finding there is not parallel fast cycle infrastructure - all of the major tunnels in Sydney ban cycles, and none of them have anything that actually facilitates a fast journey in parallel on a cycle.

FWIW, the M5 East Tunnel was to have a cycleway alongside Wolli Creek - RTA got to an advanced planning stages. But oppositionfrom tree-huggers in the Bardwell Park area put a stop to it. Talk about Pyrric Victory - couldn't stop the car tunnel, but dammit,they were gonna make sure they stopped somethin: the environment friendliest option.

Bourke St cycleway was meant to be the counter measure to the Eastern Distributor/Airport Motorway, and very nice plans were included in the Local Traffic Plan for the ED - uni-directional bike lanes on each side of Bourks St. What has now materialised is a far cry from that - and just look at how ballistic the business interestshave gone over that little.

The Lane Cove Tunnel project included provision of a 3m wide cycleway or a 4m wide shared cycleway/ pedestrian footpath (intended for pedestrian and pedal bicycle use) from Wicks Road North Ryde to Park Road Naremburn.

Off course, Park Road Naremburn isn't much of a destination - it's the same-old same-old problem of disconnected cycleways.

For the Harbour Tunnel, the parallel fast cycleway is on the Harbour Bridge. Just don't mention about the steps and lack of connection up to Park Rd Naremburn etc

Cheers

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.